"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "Piss Boy" Turmel

JCT: There's a banking systems engineering huckster going
around Canada challenging the banks. I was invited to his
lecture the last time he came around Ontario and published a
list of errors by this supposed expert in banking and yet
he's still being pushed by some of my friends. Why they
would p push a fraud, I don't know.

Almost every one of his complaints against the banks would
apply against a LETS bank too! So I'm republishing an
abridged list of his errors from my first post:

behalf of the People of Canada alleging that financial
institutions are engaged in illegal creation of money.

Quote:

JCT: I'm complaining that they have been given the legal
right to create our money, such legal right I want to take

away from them, and here they're complaining that they're
creating it illegally. I have no doubt the banks will simply
point to their charters with the governments and say it's a
problem for Parliament, not the courts. Sad to think this is
already off-target and doomed to failure.

JCT: #1. Creating chips is what banks do legally.

Quote:

JRD: The complaint filed Friday April 15, 2005 in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster,

alleges that all financial institutions who are in the
business of lending money have engaged in a deliberate
scheme to defraud the borrowers by lending non-existent
money which are illegally created by the financial
institutions out of "thin air."

Quote:

JCT: Just like LETS credits are created right out of thin
air. Just like Casino Turmel poker chips are created right

out of thin air. There's no intent to defraud in any of our
cases. The "it's illegal to lend non-existent chips which
are created out of thin air" crowd are again off-target. Are
they going to attack LETS too?

JCT: #2 New non-existent money created out of thin air is
legally lent out.

Quote:

JRD: Dempsey claims that creation of money out of nothing
is ultra vires these defendants' charter or granted

corporate power and therefore void and all monies loaned
under false pretence contravenes the Criminal Code.

Quote:

JCT: Same criticism for LETS creating Greendollars out of
nothing and no one says it contravenes the Criminal Code.

And he doesn't mention which section. I used S.283 (genocide
for the mort) and S.179 (gaming house for the gage). I
wonder what they section the Great Canadian Crusade is going
to use?

JCT: #3. If someone doesn't create money out of nothing,
where would it come from?

Quote:

JRD: The suit which is the first of its kind ever filed in
Canada which could involve millions of Canadians alleges

that the contracts entered into between the People ("the
borrowers") and the financial institutions were void or
voidable and have no force and effect due to anticipated
breach and for non-disclosure of material facts.

Quote:

JCT: So far, I haven't heard any valid "cause of action."
I've got one but it's not this, so far.

JCT: #4. No valid cause of action to say void.

Quote:

JRD: Dempsey says the transactions constitute
counterfeiting and money laundering in that the source of

money, if money was indeed advanced by the defendants and
deposited into the borrowers' accounts, could not be traced,
nor could not be explained or accounted for.

Quote:

JCT: Of course, the banks can say, it has all been
explained by Bank of Canada Governor Graham Towers who

explained that "the banks, of course, do not lend out their
depositors' funds, each and every time a bank makes a loan,
brand new money is created." What's not to understand. The
Government has licensed their use of the Canadian money
plates and as long as they only print and lend and not print
and spend, what they are doing has Parliament's stamp of
approval. So far, nothing actionable.

JCT: #5. Creating money is easily explained.

Quote:

JRD: At all material times, these defendant banks and all
of them have no legal standing to lend any money to

borrowers, because: 1) these banks and credit unions did not
have the money to lend, and therefore they did not have any
capacity to enter into a binding contract;

Quote:

JCT: Graham Towers explained how they created the money
they lend so of course, they did have the new chips to lend.

As for whether it's binding, the premise is wrong. If not
having the chips to lend prevents the binding contract,
having the chips to lend then does permit the binding
contract?

JCT: #6. Of course the banks have tokens to lend.

Quote:

JRD: 2) the defendants did not have any cash reserve, they
are not legally permitted to lend their depositor's or

member's money without expressed written authorization form
the depositors,

Quote:

JCT: He's under the impression that banks lend out their
depositors' funds. Must not have read my bankmath page

before deciding to take on the re-engineering of the banking
system. As Graham Towers and my math explain, they do not
lend their members' money so they don't need their members'
written authorization. Another off-target shot.

JCT: Banks do not lend out their depositors's funds. Dempsey
really proves his incompetence here.

Quote:

JRD: and: 3) the defendants have no tangible assets of
their own to lend and all their "assets" are "paper assets"

which are mainly in the form of "receivables" created by
them out of "thin air," derived out of loans whereas the
monies loaned out were also created out of thin air.

Quote:

JCT: Every poker bank and LETS starts with no tangible
assets, other than the tokens, so who cares? Another off-

target waste of time.

JCT: #7 People don't borrow assets, they borrow tokens
created out of thin air. Who cares?

Quote:

JRD: Other than bookkeeping and computer entries, no money
or substance of any value was loaned by the defendants to

the Plaintiff.

Quote:

JCT: Same for LETS and Casino Turmel poker chips.

JCT: #8. Bookkeeping and computer credits are money too.

Quote:

JRD: In all of the loan transactions entered into between
the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the financial institutions

did not bring any equity to any of the transaction.

Quote:

JCT: Same for LETS and Casino Turmel poker chips.

JCT: #9. Why would a bank need to bring equity to the deal?

Quote:

JRD: All the equities were provided by the borrowers. The
practices of the defendant financial institutions alleged in

JCT: So what if banking practices by LETS and Casino Turmel
poker chips do not lend real, tangible, legal tender cash

money either? That's what we're trying to get away from.

JCT: #10. Legal tender cash money is better than computer
credits?

Quote:

JRD: The complaint alleges that the loan transactions are
fraudulent because no value was ever imparted by the

defendants to the Plaintiff; these defendants did not risk
anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost
anything under any circumstances and therefore no lien has
been perfected according to law and equity against the
Plaintiff.

Quote:

JCT: It's the same complaint against every LETS that simply
helped the members effect trading between them with no value

imparted by the LETS. Shut down LETS with the banks too?

JCT: #11 Providing liquidity is of value.

Quote:

JRD: The foreclosure proceedings which comes as a result of
the borrower defaulting on such fraudulent loans

Quote:

JCT: He's unaware that the foreclosure is a function of the
interest, not of any fraud in organizing the loan.

JCT: #12. Foreclosure is not a function of fraud but of
interest.

Quote:

JRD: were carried out in bad faith by the defendant banks
and credit unions, and as such, these foreclosures were in

every respect unlawful acts of conversion and unlawful
seizure of property without due process of law which always
results in the unjust enrichment of the defendants.

Quote:

JCT: I'm sure most of them would rather the borrower had
been able to repay and not have to foreclose. They're just

doing their jobs as their jobs have been laid out in the
banking system algorithm. And they certainly offer due
process, Turmel managed to stall the Woodhouse foreclosure
eviction for 33 months rent-free. So again, his cards are no
good to win this particular pot.

JCT: #21. It is completely untrue to say they can lend 10
times "your property" as well as "10 times" a deposit. Both
wrong.

Quote:

JRD: Hearings are set for September 12 and 13 at the
Supreme Court in Vancouver. The statement of claim alleges

among other things, creation of money out of nothing,
fraudulent misrepresentation, money laundering, fraud,
charging of criminal interest rates and breach of contract.
A copy of the Statement of Claim is available for download
through http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ .

Quote:

JCT: What's the difference between criminal interest and
non-criminal interest?

JCT: #22. There are no "non-criminal" death rates.

Quote:

JRD: The banks are being represented by two of the largest
law firms in Canada such as Borden, Ladner, Gervais with 670

lawyers and Fasken, Martineau, Dumoulin with 500 lawyers.
This is clearly a David and Goliath case where these lawyers
are moving to tread heavily on Dempsey and the people of
Canada he represents.

Quote:

JCT: And this David's got no cards. He left his one ace at
home.

JCT: #23. Like a kamikaze pilot with no bomb, this David's
slingshot has no rock.

Quote:

JCT: It takes quite a lot of nerve to invite millions to
follow you when you don't know where you're going.
"John Ruiz Dempsey BSCr, LL.B, a criminologist and forensic
litigation specialist." And a lawyer no less. No wonder he's

ready to go in without a winning card in his hand. He's a
lawyer. People will trust him. Stick with UNILETS.

JCT: Anyway, Dempsey's fraudulent banking side-show is back
in Ontario. If anyone would like to hear his pitch, maybe
ask him a few of these embarrassing questions, he'll be at;

JCT: Of course, it's predicted that there would be many such
fraudulent shepherds arising in the end days. Dempsey has no
excuse for passing along so many errors. Didn't he ever do a
search for "banking systems engineering" before launching
on is crusade against "banking systems engineering?"

Anyone who can make this many mistakes has another agenda.
Getting things right isn't on it. I'm just dismayed that
some of my friends and students have been taken in. That
even those initiated to the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven
can still be tricked by Mammon is testament to its hypnotic
effect.